Lew Paxton Price's Challenge to Mainstream Physics

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What does any sort of "ivory" have to do with experimental verification of a claim?

The ivory tower of academia vs. the boots on the ground of an engineer dealing with real-world projects was my point.

I'm afraid you have no idea of what you are talking about, this time it relates to your concept of academia. I personally spent untold hours, days
and years on end building apparata for high-energy physics, and that includes machining, gluing, measuring, soldering, programming electronics,
recording data and a plethora of other difficult to master and practical skills that you'll never be able to fathom. It's hard, it's dirty, it's
experimentation, and if you call it "ivory tower", maybe you need a refresher in English we well (maybe you'll take that, since you always refuse
to take a refresher in physics).

Originally posted by masterp
Well, I like the model too. But my question is still unanswered: how can we tell if this model is better than the standard one? so far, there is
nothing about that.

If thinking of the electron as a vortex rather than a particle explains the spin of the electron in a way that makes sense, and the inference that the
pressure of a dynamic ether causes the relative vacuum of the center of the electron vortex to have an energy source bringing about that spin, then
perhaps a whole new world of science and technology would arise from thinking that way.

A vortex is formed from a medium of some kind. Its energy source is the difference in pressure between the medium and the relative vacuum at its
center. The electron behaves as if it were a vortex, indicating that it must have (1) a medium, and (2) a relative vacuum at its center at all times.
A dynamic ether medium may be acceptable because Sagnac conclusively proved the existence of ether and others have improved upon his work (see Ether
Detection Experiments or Sagnac).

Originally posted by Mary Rose
If thinking of the electron as a vortex rather than a particle explains the spin of the electron in a way that makes sense, and the inference that the
pressure of a dynamic ether causes the relative vacuum of the center of the electron vortex to have an energy source bringing about that spin, then
perhaps a whole new world of science and technology would arise from thinking that way.

Here's a better way of putting it, I think:

If thinking of the electron as a vortex rather than a particle explains the spin of the electron in a way that makes sense, because the energy source
that brings about that spin is identified as the pressure of a dynamic ether creating a relative vacuum at the center of the vortex, then perhaps a
whole new world of science and technology would arise from thinking that way.

Originally posted by masterp
Well, I like the model too. But my question is still unanswered: how can we tell if this model is better than the standard one? so far, there is
nothing about that.

If thinking of the electron as a vortex rather than a particle explains the spin of the electron in a way that makes sense, and the inference that the
pressure of a dynamic ether causes the relative vacuum of the center of the electron vortex to have an energy source bringing about that spin, then
perhaps a whole new world of science and technology would arise from thinking that way.

"Perhaps" is the key word here...until we see experiments that not only verify the theory but also prove things the Standard Model does not prove,
the Standard Model will continue to be the accepted theory.

Price now has a 26 page .pdf file online entitled "Some Fundamentals of Dynamic Ether Theory." It can be downloaded here:
Link

An excerpt from page 2:

The existence of Dynamic ether does nothing to discredit Einstein. Before his passing, Einstein was using tensor theory in an attempt to show that
light is a wave moving through space. In fact, the complete version of nether theory shows that, in many ways, Einstein was correct. His only major
problem was that he failed to look back at physics theories after it was known that the electron had "spin". One should always look at the accepted
information of the past when a new present might show that such information is suspect.

1. A fluid medium that has a form of mass (inertia).
2. A pressure difference between the center of the vortex and the volume in which the medium resides.
3. An equivalent of coriolis force to start the inward flow in a particular rotational direction.

From Behind Light's Illusion, by Lew Paxton Price from the theory developed by Lew Price and Mart Gibson, Third Edition, Copyright 1999 & 2001
by Lew Paxton Price and Herbert Martin Gibson, Published by Lew Paxton Price, Book One - Overview, "A Different Kind of Theory,":

The purpose of a unified theory is to explain how all physical phenomena relate. The purpose of a newly proposed unified theory is to explain
this in a more logical and less complicated way than does any previously proposed unified theory. To accomplish this, the newly proposed theory must
examine any relevant prior experiments and find a way to explain them in a better way. Likewise, any relevant natural phenomena must be looked upon
anew and explained in a better way.

A valid unified theory does not require new experiments. Nor must it make predictions. . . .

Are you concerned that we do not fundamentally know what an electron may be, we have no way to understand what it could be, we can describe it using
contexts. Do you think there is any way we can ever further know what it is, are there any theories or can we even think successfully as to what it
might be? We can say it is exactly what it is, but can we ever know what that is or what that means?

I do know about hydrogen, but I asked you about the electron, which is a component of hydrogen. I know a lot of characteristics of an apple, apples
have tons of electrons in them, I dont know much about how to envision electrons, or what they are.

In a few recent replies to you I asked some questions you havent answered. one in particular I see discussed in this thread, I want to know why you
dismiss the potential of an aether existing ( not luminous aether)? The main point would be gravity; dark energy or cosmological constant may also
imply aether; and I know i said not luminous but if the electric and magnetic field isnt made of electrons, and you cant tell me anything about its
construct, component, or physical existence, and the same about light itself, I cannot deny the possibility space itself may play in the phenomenon of
EM radiation.

I do know about hydrogen, but I asked you about the electron, which is a component of hydrogen. I know a lot of characteristics of an apple, apples
have tons of electrons in them, I dont know much about how to envision electrons, or what they are.

That's the thing, you are interested in a subject in any depth, you go out and study, instead of apparently asking for information in a medium not
well suited for its delivery, such as ATS. This has been pointed out to you many times.

In a few recent replies to you I asked some questions you havent answered.

I do know about hydrogen, but I asked you about the electron, which is a component of hydrogen. I know a lot of characteristics of an apple, apples
have tons of electrons in them, I dont know much about how to envision electrons, or what they are.

That's the thing, you are interested in a subject in any depth, you go out and study, instead of apparently asking for information in a medium not
well suited for its delivery, such as ATS. This has been pointed out to you many times.

In a few recent replies to you I asked some questions you havent answered.

Well that's why.

You are an expert on this subject and this is exactly why I come to ATS, and these threads, to discus these topics. One would think you could answer
my questions with little effort if even generally and vaguely and get into interesting discussion.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
You are an expert on this subject and this is exactly why I come to ATS, and these threads, to discus these topics

I beg your pardon, but you seem to be asking questions which don't have much connection to the titles of the threads you visit. There are a lot of
phenomena in physics that indeed involve electrons. If you visit a thread like this, it's pretty much a prerequisite that you did a bit of homework
on the basics. You repeatedly refuse to do that. Suite yourself.

It's like we discuss railway traffic, and you ask "what is granite". Of course granite is used in construction, but posts like this deflect from
the topic and are in fact BLATANT POLLUTION OF ATS.

The following illustration shows the electron as it would appear from the top of the vortex. The large circle is the "hole" into which the
medium is flowing. The curves lines are the paths taken by the medium which is also flowing into the plane of the circle. The tangential and radial
speeds at this point are that of light, "c", and the resultant inward flow has the speed of the product of the square root of two and "c".

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.